(Original post by Clip)
The beeb is better than most, but in the last decade or so they have abandoned any pretence of impartiality. There is now such naked bias toward the left that it is truly sickening. Mainly, I presume that it is because the executive and senior reporters are all Muswell Hill dwelling champagne socialists.

Actually they tend to be biased towards the incumbent government. So any left-leaning of the BBC at the moment is more of a reflection on the Tories than it is of the BBC's 'view'

For the love of god, do you watch any political interviews on the bbc or any other british channels? or is the one show as far as you venture? i've seen worst. Oh and you must have a terrible memory, tony blair and gordon brown both got their fair share of bias questions.

(Original post by humanrights)
this is the most absurd analysis i have ever read.

the BBC licence is required by law for all tv owners. by its own admission, it is a politically partisan organisation. britain has a left wing state propoganda channel-- which is unacceptable in a supposedly 'free and democratic' society.

its no use comparing the bbc with other countries, because that does excuse the bbcs crimes against democracy.

join the campaign to abolish the bbc.

Why on gods earth would anyone take you seriously when you clearly have no idea what the tv license is for.
The television license is not a license needed to own a television, its a license needed in order to receive partly state funded broadcasts.
You can own a television, quite lawfully, without paying the license fee. Just dont expect anything more than the xbox and blueray.

Even if the BBC did have a lefty bias (it may well be left bias, I am not going argue with that. But that is not the argument at hand), noone is forcing you to watch their news programming, hardly mind altering propaganda when their are at least 20 other news channels on offer. (all of which, may I add, are bias in some way or other) The BBC does not own a broadcasting monopoly.
I dont even quiet understand how you can accuse them of state funded propaganda while at the same time accuse them of left bias. Last time I looked we were living in a fairly right of centre country.
And quite honestly, I'd rather pay the licensing fee than put up with the utter bull**** sky/itv produce. And its always nice to watch a full television program without a break in the middle.

The thing is, lots of people on the left-wing and right-wing do both actively complain about the BBC's perceived viewpoints. Since you're both ****ing complaining about it all the time, I think that the corporation's doing something right.

"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias",
Andrew Marr
the Daily Mail, Oct 21st, 2006.

"People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that [global warming] is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC's coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago",
Jeremy Paxman
Media Guardian, Jan 31st, 2007.

"I do remember... the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles. I'll always remember that"
Jane Garvey
BBC Five Live, May 10th, 2007, recalling May 2nd, 1997.

then came the peter sissions memoir. he said that bbc left leaning bias was in the dna of the corporation.

The "thisislondon" link - obviously the fact that they are owned by the Daily Mail has nothing to do with that completely falsified story, has it? Oh no. No, no, no.

The other two articles - they're just bitter BBC reporters who have been sacked who just want to get their own back on the corporation that employed them. In fact, I believe Sissons is still employed by the BBC, as he does the occasional newscast, I think. (Last I saw him fronting a BBC newscast was a Saturday lunchtime bulletin - which is when I'm usually at work - back in 2008).

(Original post by humanrights)
you reject the conclusions of the 2 bbc director generals and a veteran employee?

nice.

british public are forced to pay for the state brainwashing channel if they watch it or not.

but you have a point, i might make a legal claim.

State brainwashing channel? This is the state brainwashing channel that was so anti-Blair that his government gave the BBC such a mighty slap in the Hutton Inquiry that even the Daily Mail went on the BBC's side, is it?

The same (*supposedly*) left-wing BBC, that (apparently) broadcasts a political agenda opposite to the current government's political agenda?

The whole point of watching news is to become aware and then make your own assessment. The best way to go about this is to watch BBC news and programs that report on other countries and world. You then watch other country's state channels for news related to britain and only then you can judge these channels.

Also to note is that BBC is a state TV and its expected to lean a bit towards its own country's policies.
Example of this is when Andy Murray is playing they hype him up so much that the guy crumbles under pressure of media.
The same can be said about spanish football commentators.

There is no such a thing as completely objective TV/Broadcasting company. (Prove me wrong)

(Original post by LawBore)
"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias",
Andrew Marr
the Daily Mail, Oct 21st, 2006.

Andrew Marr giving his own opinion of the BBC there. Just like most people do whenever this debate is brought up.

(Original post by LawBore)
"People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that [global warming] is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC's coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago",
Jeremy Paxman
Media Guardian, Jan 31st, 2007.

Again, a human being giving their view of the BBC. Just like other humans do.

BBC accused of being both left and right-wing by people of opposing political parties = unbiased.

Might that be to do with the fact that most media pros like to celebrate a night of hard work with champagne? Just like TV Centre is strewn with champagne bottles every other election night.

I've seen quite a few BBC newscasts from Major's time as PM - they do seem to have had a pro-Major stance and seemed pro Conservative even for a couple of years after the 1997 election.

And I think that celebrating was a common theme throughout the UK in the 1997 election.

I don't care to whatever political side BBC staff are biased, as long as that bias doesn't show up in their news coverage (which it usually doesn't) then that's fine as that is what I am paying them for.

(Original post by AidanLunn)
The "thisislondon" link - obviously the fact that they are owned by the Daily Mail has nothing to do with that completely falsified story, has it? Oh no. No, no, no.

The other two articles - they're just bitter BBC reporters who have been sacked who just want to get their own back on the corporation that employed them. In fact, I believe Sissons is still employed by the BBC, as he does the occasional newscast, I think. (Last I saw him fronting a BBC newscast was a Saturday lunchtime bulletin - which is when I'm usually at work - back in 2008).

falsified story?? er, no. clearly not.

these anti 'daily mail' conspiracy theories are becoming more and more bizarre.

these anti 'daily mail' conspiracy theories are becoming more and more bizarre.

Because the Daily Mail stories are becoming more and more bizarre.

Just because most papers say it's true doesn't mean it actually is. Don't forget, the real reason why the papers have an agenda against the BBC is because they are losing money because of the migration from paper to online content. A few papers have embraced this, but many haven't. The BBC has a guaranteed income, and many BBC programmes have larger viewing figures than the circulation of The Sun. And that's the real reason why many papers have an agenda against the BBC. And they know you'll buy it, because they know you're gullible enough to trust and believe them.

Reference: the fact that many of these so-called anti-BBC newspapers have frequently had DVDs of BBC programmes as free gifts. And the fact that many of them currently have or have had ex-BBC employees.

If you'd worked at the BBC, you'd know the truth is that there are more Tories there per square inch than there are Tory supporters at Tory party conferences!

It's just the fact that many of them are pro-John Major rather than pro-Margaret Thatcher that they get attacked and get called "lefties". Just because they're on the left-wing of the Tory party.

(Original post by Barden)Actually they tend to be biased towards the incumbent government. So any left-leaning of the BBC at the moment is more of a reflection on the Tories than it is of the BBC's 'view'